4 ms·

I don't understand how these clauses are even legal at first place. It violates the basic right of freedom of work. You can't have on one end freedom of enterpr

by aikah 10y ago

I don't understand how these clauses are even legal at first place. It violates the basic right of freedom of work. You can't have on one end freedom of enterprise but on the other hand no freedom of work for employees. the worst thing is the fact that these agreements usually come with 0 compensation.

telefonica 10y ago
Completely agree. In the UK it's called garden leave: the employer pays you to drink tea in your garden. It's too easy for companies to claim losses from competing employees. They need to put their $$$ where their mouth is
- greglindahl 10y ago
  I believe that this is basically allowed in California, too, but the employee can still quit.
- yomly 10y ago
  In the UK you're usually paid full salary though and garden leave is rarely longer than 3 months iirc.
tajen 10y ago
> with 0 compensation I don't agree compensation would be any useful. In France non-compete agreements must be compensated proportionnaly. Example: My company prohibited me from working with the customers on the whole territory of France for a duration of 3 months, paid at 1/3 of the salary per month. The real mean clause is that they can decide whether to apply it or not, and they can tell you on the day you leave. Therefore: They save, except when the employee gets hired by the customer, in which case they only have to spend 33% of the salary for 3 months to prevent you from working. Last point, in France, Company-to-Employee non-competes are restricted, but Company-to-Company are not. Which makes things hard for consultants. So don't fall in that trap: Asking for a compensation will only seem fair on the surface. Require your government to drop non-competes altogether, and both for employees and B2B contracts.
- user5994461 10y ago
  From I recall from past French cases. 33% is not enough to enforce a non compete. That won't held in a court.

by aikah 10y ago

telefonica 10y ago

Completely agree. In the UK it's called garden leave: the employer pays you to drink tea in your garden. It's too easy for companies to claim losses from competing employees. They need to put their $$$ where their mouth is

greglindahl 10y ago
I believe that this is basically allowed in California, too, but the employee can still quit.
yomly 10y ago
In the UK you're usually paid full salary though and garden leave is rarely longer than 3 months iirc.

tajen 10y ago

> with 0 compensation I don't agree compensation would be any useful. In France non-compete agreements must be compensated proportionnaly. Example: My company prohibited me from working with the customers on the whole territory of France for a duration of 3 months, paid at 1/3 of the salary per month. The real mean clause is that they can decide whether to apply it or not, and they can tell you on the day you leave. Therefore: They save, except when the employee gets hired by the customer, in which case they only have to spend 33% of the salary for 3 months to prevent you from working. Last point, in France, Company-to-Employee non-competes are restricted, but Company-to-Company are not. Which makes things hard for consultants. So don't fall in that trap: Asking for a compensation will only seem fair on the surface. Require your government to drop non-competes altogether, and both for employees and B2B contracts.

user5994461 10y ago
From I recall from past French cases. 33% is not enough to enforce a non compete. That won't held in a court.